marignydolt

Your complete trust in the "private market" is so interesting. I would love to know the rationale for deifying corporations and villifying government? Is medicare so bad? That social security check disgusting? Your federally insured bank account make you want to puke? What in the hell have corporations done for you that makes you want to bend over and give them whatever they want whenever they want it? Were you proud of BP during the oil spill? Doting on Goldman Sachs and AIG when they brought the financial markets to their knees? Do you really think corporations have your back for any reason that does not overlap with their profit motive? Regarding this thread, why haven't the amazingly creative, efficient and brilliant genius corporate hacks figured out a way to do flood insurance better? We all can understand how big, smart, rich corporations might get someone all wet in the knickers, but for the love of Joseph Smith and magic underwear, please get your corporate fetish under control.

max, Please send the podcase to support your claim about El Erian's position. I am nearly certain El-Erian would call for a deficit-reducing BUDGET deal sooner rather than later, and, as we all (including Reagan) know, tax increases should be part of any budget deal. El Erian is not a partisan hack with a political agenda and would not be so dumb as to think that spending cuts alone are going to get us on solid fiscal footing.

True/false: You have failed to explain a single economic policy proposed by Mr. Romney that would differentiate him from W.

If true, I'm not spouting false attributions. Your silence on the subject you claim to care so much about makes no sense, given your super-wordy responses to any number of other random topics on the board.

If false, then please re-post any non-W economic policy Romney has proposed.

Poor, stupid left-wing numbskull needs your shrewd guidance...

You're in a box, dude. Playing the hurt/amused bomb-throwing/peace-loving Palin-type card is not really working for you at the moment. It's erratic and dumb - nothing more than a thin veil over your inability to produce a case for Mr. Romney.

I'm not worried about you. I'm quite convinced you and and your merry band of almost/wanna-be 1%er teabaggers will circle jerk each other in to such a frenzy that you actually believe that you have something in common with Mitt Romney, W or any other truly elite Republican clowns.

False attributions? Talking about myself, to myself? My questions have been direct, your evasion quite wordy. You refuse to engage in a fact based conversation about the economy. The reason is obvious... and it's not because having a debate with me is beneath your dignity...

I'm sure your business will carry on, even if a modicum of government regulation might fry your pea brain synapses. Good luck with all of it.

I talk endlessly about myself? That's fact-free nonsense. Over the top and grasping at straws. You tried to pull a "job creator" trump card in your prior post, and I simply responded in kind to share the perspective that even fellow business owners and "job creators" can differ on economic policies.

I have a desire to win because I feel that teabagger zombies like yourslef are ruining our country by being puppets for corporations and banks who, in the end, do not give a s*** about this country. You're carrying water for unpatriotic and disloyal organizations. GE, Goldman Sachs, Exxon Mobil are not people, and even if they were, they would not be considered loyal Americans. Yet, you wrap yourself in a flag and march forward on their behalf. Very dangerous.

Moreover, I am not distracting from anything. We are talking about presidential economic policies be cause YOU, in an effort to change the subject from Romney's assaulting/bullying/terrorizing this poor guy back in high school, said this is all YOU care about. You don't want to (/cannot) explain how Romney is different from Bush on economics, which apparently casues you to try to turn this into a lecture on why I am self-involved.

Please read your own words more carefully. You're not exactly a paragon of respect and decorum on this site. You lash out, distract, distort on a fairly consistent basis, but when someone has the ability to call you to the carpet on your ideas, you pull the vicitm card. It's very Palin/Fox... Throw, throw, throw those stones, but when the favor is returned, it's time for civility and mutual respect. Put your big girl pannies on and suck it up. Or don't. Just please be consistent.

Private sector businesses and individuals do not have a monopoly on competence, and government is not always an impediment to business. I think the lessons of the Bush-induced depression is clear: Corporations cannot be trusted. The lesson from the response to the depression: Neither can government. It's up to the people to ensure we have a balance that keeps us safe and prosperous. My businesses deal with plenty of governmental bureaucratic paperwork and people. In the end, it's just some paperwork, reporting and compliance checks. It's nothing that really streches the limits of my staff's abilities. And, in the end, alot - not all - of the the controls and regulations are in place because, without them, corporations would implement business practices that endanger our society (child labor, overtime, environmental).

To put a finer point on my infrastrucure investment statement, tax cuts do not FUND the construction of roads or schools. Your approach to responding to my point highlights another Palin/Fox/professional victim tactic that the you and other teabaggers often use. Whenver your policy point is backed into a corner, pretend you don't understand the point and twist the literal reading of the words to make it appear the person you disagree with is denigrating certain pseudo-hero populations (usually moms, soliders and blue collar workers). Clearly, in the literal sense, people build roads and school. But from a policy stand point, if you left corporations to their own devices, it is highly doubtful they would do a very good job of effectively funding roads and schools, in which case there would be fewer jobs for construction workers. That I even have to explain such an obvious point is absurd and makes me, again, wonder what type of small mind I'm dealing with here.

You have a half-brain, and some type of two-bit education, but your intense desire to be identified and associated "big dog job creators" has damaged you beyond repair. Continue to be the cheerleader for big industry and finance, and see how it works out for you. I'm sure they'll have your back if you ever stumble and need some help.

As a fellow business owner and job creator, I understand fully that businesses create as many jobs as make sense for their bottom lines - no more, no less. However, as an American, I believe that full employment is a worthy policy goal. Work, whether it be in private or public sector, provides dignity and purpose to people's lives. If the private sector cannot/will not do their part to employ Americans, government can and should intervene in a sensible way (good projects, with good ROI for society). Tax cuts don't build roads. Tax cuts don't build schools. Government does not exist solely to make the lives of business people easy. Government exists to balance the needs and desires of various constituencies. I say this as a busines owner who believes in "Country First", as in there are more important things in this world than whether I take home 53% or 58% of my companies' profits.

I'm not going to pretend I have a monopoly on facts or ideas, but I am going to call you out when you claim to care so deeply about the economy and believe with such certainty that Romney has the secret sauce to make our economy better, yet refuse to disclose why you are so certain Romney is the "it" guy. Job creation has been better under Obama than Bush. Fact. Romney has articulated no policy that differentiates him from Bush. As such, I believe one could reasonably expect similar outcomes between Bush and Romney presidencies. And, to that I say, "Thanks, but no thanks." Or should I have said "Drill, Baby, Drill"... All the one-liners get so confusing sometimes.

Are my comments crazy sometimes? Sure. I get extremely frustrated when folks over-identify with the hyper-industrial complex that Romney and Co. represents. I created my businesses the old fashioned way - putting my money at risk, showing up, hiring and firing people, getting yelled at by customers, etc. I did not bamboozle some pension fund into giving me money so I could make wreckless bets on housing derivatives or foreign exchange rates. I love the capitalist system, and have benefitted from it greatly, but Republican policies that Romney/Bush advocate are not free market policies. Their policies are designed to extract money from the middle class and upper middle class to undertax, subsidize and insure highly speculative and useless busineses (Trading/Private Equity). Sure, Dem policy is designed to extract from middle, upper middle and upper classes and distribute to folks in need AND to build and maintain infrastructure. I see it as a choice about how we are going to spend our collective resources - subsidizing wreckless bankers or funding investments in the future. I honestly do not understand how anyone with a brain and not part of a specific special interest protected by Romney/Bush policies could support the other side.

I don't give a rat's a** if folks on this board think I'm a nut case. When I engage in a conversation, I'm going to use all tools I have - including invective - to make points. Deal with it. You're a tough, self-sufficient Republican big shot. When I feel I've won (like when you refuse/are unable to explain how Romney is different from Bush, that's a win...), I'll chill out.

That's a cop out. Nothing you say substantiates your view that Romney's economic policies are different from George Bush's economic policies. W's policies, as a matter of fact, led to job creation numbers far worse than that which we have experienced under Obama. Corporate profits are at record highs. The stock market has, what, doubled (?) since Obama has been President. Corporations are doing fine and they won't hire. Not much Obama can do about that. When confronted with a healthy corporate sector that will not create jobs, the government should step in. But, teabaggers in Congress won't allow this. So, what can be done? And, please, get more creative than "lower taxes for corporations and wealthy people." We tried that.

There is nothing personal or nasty in this comment. You announce to the world that all you care about is the economy, yet you offer no policy points to support Romney as the solution. Worse, when confronted with facts that might cast an unfavorable light on Romney, you default to all the tired, stale Obama-as-terrorist/socialist/non-American rants mass manufactured and distributed by the right wing media/insanity vortex. It's sad to see people like you, who clearly have some type of education and intellect, buying hook/line/sinker into what can only be described as loser talk from the right. In so doing, you become nothing more than a puppet for big industry and bankers. You're better than that.

And, before you start ranting about how Bush is not running for President (oh really?!), please explain how Romney's approach to leading on economic issues will differ from the last beloved Harvard Business School "CEO" President's policies?

Why "victim" in quotes? Are you OK with the idea of a group of people barging into your home, tackling you with scissors in hand, holding you down and cutting your hair against your will? What type of friggin' society do you believe we should aspire to be? Good Mormon God!!! What's next? People marrying animals? Jinda/Palin 2016. Viva La Tea Party!!!

Oh, boy. Here we go. Because teabaggers don't really care about facts, it seems necessary to provide a brief tutorial on how to seek them out. Yes, facts CAN be wrong on Wikipedia. There are a couple of really, really neat things you can do to with the amazing world wide interwebs to get comfortable with facts. A couple of ideas come to mind: First, there are plenty of citations and links to other sources of information that back the facts presented on Wikipedia. Click through. Are the sources legitimate (i.e., NOT Fox News)? If so, you might get more comfortable that the information presented is right. Second, do another google search to verify this information. Contrary to what Fox tells you, there is no left wing conspiracy to keep you ignorant about Obama's background. Just do some research. Granted, this is might be outside of your comfort zone, as it requires more than sitting back and absorbing whatever drivel Fox News puts in your ear. But try it. Reading can be fun. And, you might actually learn something.

Facts: It appears Romney terrorized people as a matter our course in high school.
Folks on this thread are claiming that it does not matter because the economy trumps all.
Same folks on thread claiming economy trumps all want to turn this into a conversation about Obama's supposed ties to terrorists, even though these ties have nothing to do with the economy. Do I have to write that plainly to make you understand my point?

Ahh, yes, everyone is yearning for the return to the totally awesome Bush/Cheney era. It's going to be so cool! Remember how lowering taxes totally stimulated the economy and made the deficit disappear!! Remember how sweet that was? Those most excellent and respectable bankers and "job creators" really stepped up because of the "certainty" created by super-expensive, totally uselses wars. If we could only have another war-mongering, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, spendthrift in office again, America would rock. Viva la Tea Party!! Palin/Jindal 2016!!!!

Copperhead... always to be relied upon to deliver irrelevant, fact-free drivel. Your leadership position in the low-information set is well established. Congratulations.

Why so much deflection? Why no attempt to think about what these actions might mean, and how they might revael what type of person Romney is? Obama may have had conversations and relationships with "terrorists" in the past, but there is no evidence that, unlike Romney, he has actually terrorized anyone. The incidents described in the report are alarming, even if they occured a long time ago.

If by "we" you mean your fellow low-information knee-jerk right wing ideological tebagger friends too lazy to look on wikipedia for such basic information, then your statement is valid (albeit somewhat irrlevant). Anyone with basic knowledge of how to use "the google" can find out Obama's career history.

Just because you don't know something does not mean you are the victim of a grand, covert socialist scheme to keep you uninformed. Take personal responsibility for your ignorance; don't try to blame others for your utter deficiency of facts. Or just... Stay ignorant, my friend.

Why not cap the collaborative agreement? The range in commissions the NPs are paying to physicians seem disprportionate to the little amount of time the physician spend with the patient. The MDs should be paying a commission to the nurse practitioners for doing their work.